who should be banned?

[Sparrow]

I note with some irritation I must admit, that only two of the posts I have contributed to this thread have not been deleted ... I don't think in any of those posts I contravened the forum rules and I would invite whoever deleted those posts to explain their deletion

 

[Brian Legge]

Over on APUG, mod actions taken on a single post remove the contents of the post and replace it with a description of why the post was deleted along with the mods who performed the edit.

That maintains the continuity of discussions, makes the fact that people were off topic visible (which can be a deterrent to other off topic discussion), keeps the mods accountable as well as gives the poster someone to follow up with about what happened. It also avoids the 'where did my post go' questions since there is 'history' visible in the thread of the actions taken.

Just a thought as it seems like one of the more common frustrations here is not knowing what happened, who removed something or why. It would increase the burden on the mods (they'd have to write why something was deleted and potentially field questions about it) but it seems like it is worth seeing if their strategy has any merit.

 

[splitimageview]

^^^^^this.

 

[Rogrund]

Is there an official updated list of all the mods?

I found this under FAQ:

The mods are Back Alley, Rover, Doug, helenhill, AusDLK, Godfrey, jsrocket, and jonmanjiro.

 

[Rick Waldroup]

Where is KB23 (Ned) When we need him?????

Yes, indeed- I miss Ned.

 

[tunalegs]

Just sending a PM to someone seems to invite huge amounts of PM abuse for moderators, sometimes so vicious it seems like the RFF is partially populated by wolves. Mods simply cannot deal with 5 to ten PMs per deletion. If they have time on APUG, more power to them.

When a post disappears 95% of the time it is obvious to the poster, who is skating near the edge.

If the problem with the post should be apparent to the poster, you may want to question why they'd respond so viciously? It seems odd, or at least unexpected. I moderated on automotive forums for years, which was loaded with 16 year old know-it-alls, who could be relentlessly stupid and rude, but I sort of figured that the demographic on RFF is older/mellower. Of course some people just mature into full grown jerks. 😀

I'm kind of surprised that the forum here doesn't record edits made by mods (apparently?). Transparency and being up front, are in my experience important to building trust amongst members and demonstrating that 1: the mods actually do act in the service of the forum, 2: giving an idea of what goes on and why. This thread is particularly good for those reasons. But again just my two cents based on my experiences on a very different forum.

Edit: I'd also like to point out that a lot of threads are closed or censored on account of "politics" being against the rules. And yet discussion of politics is not mentioned in the forum rules in the FAQ. If political discussion is indeed officially out of bounds, it ought to be there in the FAQ. Because at times, more so in the past, certain discussions only seemed to get closed or threatened with being closed when a particular sort of political sentiment was being discussed - and yet the posts in the same thread expressing a different political leaning seemed to be willfully ignored. I'm not suggesting that this is intentional, but it can give the appearance of being so when it plays out that way.

 

[PhotoMat]

...text can be as cold or heated as you the reader make it out to be. Keep that in mind the next time some sort of argument flares up.

I wholeheartedly agree with Dave's comment.

Compared to other forums, this place is downright genteel. Yes, there are some who read more into a post that exceeds or inflates the author's intentions, but that is to be expected when we use an impersonal method of communication to convey our personal thoughts/opinions.

I approach these things with the view of "Hey, maybe this guy hasn't had his morning coffee yet." Or in the case of RFF, "Hey, maybe this guy's Metamucil hasn't kicked in yet."

(DISCLAIMER: The aforementioned comment is a JOKE about a fictional person and is not intended to criticize those who may or may not be old, constipated or cranky. Any resemblance to the RFF readership is purely coincidental and unintentional.)😉

In all my time here on RFF, I only remember one individual who truly deserved to be banned. This was many years ago and I can't remember his name, but he was an inveterate troll who went on to create a pornographic website that was devoted to slamming the RFF and it's members (by name). This guy was truly a barking lunatic. For ten extra trivia points, does anybody remember his name?

All in all, this is a pretty good place. One thing that the internet does provide us with is the opportunity to think before we type.

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

Yes, indeed- I miss Ned.

Ned still posts frequently on APUG

 

[Rick Waldroup]

Ned still posts frequently on APUG

Thanks, Chris.

 

[helen.HH]

oh just ban Me already
I will try RFF Detox and get the Drug out of my System

me tired of all this silly politico stuff...
will have to read 'other' threads
and start a 'Toy' Thread 😉

 

[PhotoMat]

Careful there, Helen.😉

 

[clayne]

^^^^^this.

Yep. Over on APUG the mods are much more transparent, delete a lot less, control a lot less, and there's no huge battles going on a regular basis. Small little arguments and minor confrontations but that's expected in debate and where opinions differ. I rarely see the APUG mods swoop in and kill things unless its really out of hand. Right amount of balance and almost no censorship. The lack of censorship doesn't mean people just post crap it instead gives the freedom to speak their mind without retribution and threat.

A significant difference on APUG is most of the members have a much thicker skin and require less hand holding. They're not so easily offended.

 

[bobbyrab]

oh just ban Me already
I will try RFF Detox and get the Drug out of my System

I've actually un-bookmarked RFF in a bid to kick, or at least tame the habit. As you can see with no success, like a scab I can't stop picking at.
That sounds very damming of RFF, but it's more a refection of myself, I have other things I would be better putting my time towards, catholic guilt for not fulfilling a protestant work ethic.🙂

 

[Dektol Dan]

That's me, call me Jesus!

That's me, call me Jesus!

Sorry i am slow learner, i am still missing something. Is it not possible that all the people which have been Banned are still looking in and reading "lurking" or have come back in with a different name, Avatar etc.
This is the internet anything is possible or am i wrong, not all people are honest about the details the give when they sign in.

I was banned years ago, and rose again. It's odd that a clever quip is Dangerous to the Carlos types in the forum. Most folks form cliques and respond to one another. There is a great disparity both in number and experience in this forum, and like the real world, most folks respond to what they already believe, whether factual or not. Almost no responds to my commentary, so I just toss them off for self satisfaction, just like Wiener tweets. This the respect a lifetime of experience deserves. I've earned it.

 

[Contarama]

I like Godfrey's approach to moderation...he posts something like "I'll be watching you" and lets it go at that until he has to do whatever he has to do...a very suave strategy when dealing with heated situations and people.

Personally I do not like being warned in PMs and I definitely don't like being blasted with no explanation.

 

[Matthew Runkel]

I would limit banning to those, like spammers and especially the unnamed person, who demonstrate that they are not here in good faith. Lack of good faith can be demonstrated over time, or with a single post. People with hundreds and hundreds of posts are presumptively here in good faith, although some may occasionally benefit from counseling.

For all lesser matters, to the extent moderators are here to enforce the rules, I believe they should do so with a heavy dose of salutary neglect. One example: I don't understand the utility of closing threads instead of letting them play out. If grooming the site is important, I would much prefer to see that done by moving threads rather than by closing them.

I rarely post here but have been a daily reader for ten years. Although I would choose for the site to be a little more laissez faire, I have been very satisfied with how it operates and am very grateful that it exists and has dedicated moderators to keep it running well.

 

[Keith]

I often wonder what the selection criteria is when choosing new mods. The last lot of new inductions included some choices that surprised me to be honest!

Which is not to criticise the individuals in question I might add.

 

[clayne]

I like Godfrey's approach to moderation...he posts something like "I'll be watching you" and lets it go at that until he has to do whatever he has to do...a very suave strategy when dealing with heated situations and people.

Personally I do not like being warned in PMs and I definitely don't like being blasted with no explanation.

Yes, always best to throw out a veiled/ambiguous threat when I said his shredding of photographic negatives was insane and "misguided." I was then further accused of calling him names, being rude, etc. That's exactly what we don't need: threats or feigned histrionics over things that really aren't worth it nor worthy of it.

This is why this forum needs a thicker skin and less moderation.

 

[helen.HH]

just a thought
hold back your arrows & rocks

but my View
is that we are ALL Guests here on RFf
some are voyeurs, some contributors, some agitators
Who are we too Judge and take our 'freedom of speech' here so seriously

didn't your Mama ever Teach you
if you have nothing nice to say don't say anything at all... :angel:
Charm and Humor can be ever so Seductive & Winning.

 

[kbg32]

Mama was always right Helen.